IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 11 September 2020 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773E93A13A2; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vT2OxB3guLvE; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FABF3A13AE; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 09:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A565389D8; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:02:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 63JkloQiVaET; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:02:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00630389D5; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:02:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6662875; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:23:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, "roll-chairs@ietf.org" <roll-chairs@ietf.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@yahoo.com>, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, "draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200910200744.GE89563@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <159968972884.1065.3876077471852624744@ietfa.amsl.com> <MN2PR11MB35659A0710E687A7C9995E6ED8270@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20200910200744.GE89563@kduck.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:23:50 -0400
Message-ID: <17053.1599841430@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/H7RVQ1XTQVxtp9iusgVDamkoz54>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 16:23:59 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
    > to MOPs 0..6; but the situation for MOP 7 seems slightly different.  If we
    > were *just* leaving the bit undefined/free for reuse in that situation,
    > that is probably also something that we can do in a normal "allocate a bit
    > from an IANA registry" document without need for Updates.

Up to here, we agree.

    > But that's not
    > all we're doing; we're also saying that if you see MOP==7, then you have to
    > use the 8138 header/compression/whatever-we-end-up-calling-it.  Yet we are
    > *not* allocating MOP==7.

Tthat's exactly what we don't want to do.

We are saying NOTHING about rfc8138 when MOP==7.
Nor are we saying that the T-bit exists (or doesn't exist).

What behaviour is default and what behaviour is negotiated, and how it it
negotiated, and how the results are turned on, would be up to a document that
specifies MOP=7 (or larger mopex)

As an analogy, when we did the ToS->DSCP + bits-that-became-ECN
change, we did this for IP_version==4 and IP_version==6.
We specifically did not change it for IP_version==7 or 8.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email